Enlightening explanations and breakdown from everyone.
Skizz and Hawk have also helped me to process a number of other potential questions before I even had a chance to have 'em.
Thanks again.
Search Posts
Well, we've got people leaning a little one way, and a little the other way.
I think we have what we were after. And I'm glad that ya'll feel that it's legit to play it this way. Thanks for the thoughts.
Cool, thanks fellas. But about just the 'Poison Trait': Since the displayed card is adding the Poison Trait to all of your combat checks that turn... To be extra clear, you wouldn't see it as making it so you couldn't make ANY combat checks against poison immune banes that show up later, right? You know, since the card is -already- in play and altering your combat checks? You're seeng it like...each time that the displayed card's power would come to bear on a situation it is sort of like a separate 'playing' of the card? Wouldn't that also allow Enora to recharge a discarded spell each time that her displayed Fire Shield lent a bonus or sumthin'? Actually, we're really just interested in the intent, not splitting bunches of hairs just for sport. Do you suppose that people are mostly playing this like it doesn't prevent you from making combat checks and didn't really even think twice about it? And that this was also the design intention? Thx again.
I believe I remember seeing that it was ruled that RotRL Sajan can choose to add the fire trait/damage to his flaming fists power. What about the second power on the Rod of the Viper? If displayed, and later during the same turn a monster is encountered that is poison immune, do you have the choice of dropping the poison trait from your combat checks? Thanks.
Thanks skizzerz.
As for the verdict, we are happy either way. We just wanna play it in accordance with the intent of the power, and usually we can determine this fairly well on our own. This one was tough for us, however. In some cases that came to mind, being able to recharge Pulura so that a teammate can also ignore the Abyssal or Corrupted trait seemed to align well with the 'spirit' of the blessing's power. Yet in other cases, allowing it to work this way felt a bit odd or even more powerful than was intended. Vic addressed some of these concerns well in above posts. So unless I misunderstood something, my curiosity remains...curious. Thx. =D
Cool.
I just know what is in everyone else's hands when they play. Even without looking, being in the same game, or even the same room or country with them. I just know... Now knowing this, I'll try to be more considerate. Sorry for before. Sure, the amount of time that it takes to put it back in your hand is up to you. So do it slowly and let me have enough time to play Pulura. Reading this made me laugh even more than reading the above, for some reason... Edit: After rereading this post, that sounded worse than I intended. Imagining Hawk's satirically meta-y solution of slowing down the rate at which the card is played (complete with super slowed down sound fx), just so that a legal enough window is presented to get the most out of the B.o.P., was what I thought was pretty funny; serving also as a too perfect symbol of the odd abstractions that can occasionally happen with these kind of fun games. Of course, not so funnily put as Hawk's way. But I'm working on it. >.>
Our group has been 'blessed' to end up on the same side of most rulings, but this one generated some interesting opposing arguments. Most importantly, we wanted to be sure about who in the party gets to join in on the 'trait snubbing'. skizzerz, my own feelings are kinda just like yours: I was leaning the one way due to how I was interpreting the wording, but if it is meant to operate the other way...then it seems like an impressively swell blessing. Especially activating the ignore effect on a recharge. Perhaps I'll have a better feel for its usefulness after seeing how often the situations come up throughout the AP. However, with the way our group plays, it's already going to be pretty useful. For example, sure there are some decent arguments that the game can feel a bit stacked against large parties. Yet, having experimented with both large and small groups, we're discovering distinct advantages in our group of 5. In our large group, the freedom and willingness to specialize seems to add enough weight to more than counter what typically ails big teams. Most of our characters, in fact, are designed to fair pretty poorly as solo characters. Our Enora carries no attack spells and no evasion spells; only buffs for the real heroes. This has been working great, too. She actually seeks to explore as little as possible, even giving away blessings to Crowe in exchange for his arcane spells to boost her spell cycling and self healing. Her given exploration is generally used only in areas without barriers and monsters, or when the party examines for her. Therefore, the threat of Carrion Golem ambush remains nil save for special conditions. And Fiendish Trees present less hazard than one might expect. For, attack and evade spells are considerably more 'conditional' than buffs, and the former can sit in your hand. However, with 4 other party members, Enora can so liberally cast (/heal herself) on teammates that there is usually little left in her hand for the trees when they come out. In fact, if the group begins to anticipate that a blind explore in a location with barriers is imminent that round, she knows to cast away in advance, and can legally do so. Yet, as nice as this is, the Demonic Hoards remain an issue. This is chiefly because, if they group up on her, even if she can withstand the damage, the barrier remains undefeated. And this has gotten in the way of progress. Early on, our party leader had thusly ordered her to carry 2x--in case of hoard--holy water grenades. Yeah, that sounds like a waste of item slots, but it ends up more cost effective than the party blessing her through a demonic fistfight. Still, even this waterlogged effort sees Enora shying away from Abyssal locations. Pulura, Goddess of Grenades (among other things apparently), might have some welcome input here. (Incidentally, our Enora admittedly has a weak turn of her own, but she's always a big part of everyone else's, so it seems more fun than it might sound. Our divine-types certainly don't mind E's x2 Sagacity spells for recharging their cures, among other buffs. And overall, even considering the price of having to look out for her, she still seems to bring party performance up to be hugely worth it.) Also, thank you kindly Mr. S, and Mr. s, and everyone, for that bit of clarity. It is appreciated. I suppose that we will be playing Blessing of Pulura as if the party may ignore the traits, unless, as you say, Vic, or perhaps yourself, Mr. S, return with a different ruling.
I thought it'd be an easy thing to scrounge up a little information on this subject. Failing that, I hope that it hasn't already been addressed a thousand times over somewhere. Blessing of Pulura allows for a recharge to ignore the Abyssal or Corrupted trait on a card until the end of your turn. The wording, however, makes me believe that only the character playing the blessing gets to treat the targeted card as if it did not possess the Abyssal or Corrupted trait. Yet I recently heard a convincing argument that has instilled some doubt--and perhaps just a tiny amount of insanity (see below). Who gets to do the ignoring in a party? And for that matter, what're legally targetable cards? Cards in others' hands? Cards removed from the game? Or even in other peoples' box sets? What about cards that haven't yet been released? (For personal reasons, I'd prefer to leave alternate realities out of this.) But really, what is Pulura's deal? Thanks, Spiritually Confused
I look forward to relaying this. Thanks for the explanation and the page reference. =D
I recently listened to two different viewpoints about a possible situation. Both arguments were compelling, and I couldn't find an answer to this on the forums. Can a caster play a quick boost spell like Aid on another's check, and even though the other player's encounter still has further steps to resolve, can the assisting caster play something like Sagacity on herself to recharge her Aid? Of course, it's nice that she could cast Sagacity before the encounter; but if she hadn't? If she can not, why not, and are there multiple reasons? Thanks
Well, maybe even just alternate scenarios depending on previous outcomes, keeping the power/reward differentials negligible. This could also allow players to progress rather than repeat. When we lost a character to a falling bell in RotRL AD2, to catch our player's new character up we created an alternate little AD1 adventure called 'Gang Related' that revolved around first working for, and then breaking ties with Jubrayl Vhiski's gang. There was also a sixth scenario that the player could opt to play instead of repeating one of the failed others if that became necessary. The scenario basically involved escaping from the thieve's prison, as you must've been taken prisoner or sumthin'. We laughed when later, somewhere in AD5 or 6, our characters had to escape from being imprisoned with a hand size of 1 to start with, or something like that. Our scenario had some similarities. Moreover, Micronian's idea could be used for 'alternate approach scenarios'. Imagine that every so often you get to choose if you crash the evil guy's castle with an army, or rather attend his villainous ball in disguises. Even just having that choice would surely be a thrill for the charismazoids. ...Now, only if they could convince their barbarian little brother to go along. Sorry, developers. I know us player types dream big sometimes...as if it ain't no thing to slap it on a card and ship it to outer space or wher ever. But, you know, it's fun. Probably how you made this game in the first place...
Appreciated, that. I fear that somebody is really gonna hate this, though: My Val ended up with points spread out as much as is humanly possible. I avoided strength for a while. I admit that by the third or fourth point, I regretted the drop off in attack power. I probably would have done it a little differently, but close to the same thing. I think it was Con, Chr, Dex, Wis, Int, Str, Str in that order. I know it sounds crazy at first, but the journey made some sense out of this. Consider: When we got to Valiea(sp?) we rolled d12s for her, and having lucked out, she allowed me to spread out even further. Con was great. Chr was less great, but for our group it was still helpful. Because we had some great hitters on the team, I started using Val more to support their battles with his 1d4+x. Thus I also started carrying almost half support weapons. Said weapons, crossbows and blasting pistols and such, could be recharged by Val to add bonuses to others' combat instead of discarded. But, in case of being caught with just a crossbow in hand for my own fight, +1 Dex was welcome too. Wis was fair. And Int? This was partly just to spite our Ranzak player who couldn't raise his intelligence at all. Silly, I know. But Ranzak's gain in intellectual respect for Val was worth it (so was his feelings of betrayal). Also, by that point, I was on a roll spreading out...and the phenomenon couldn't be stopped. Then, all into strength; and as I said, I really should have done that sooner. But...by the time we got our role cards, some real magic started to happen with this. The best part ahead: In addition to being all around slightly better at various barriers with this spread, Val's first role card power was the Tactician power that lets you move when another player encounters a villian. At first, I thought how nice it'd be that I can bring combat bonuses on location. But what ended up happening was that tactician Val, with his wide array of skill bonuses, became the ultimate emergency temporary closer. A bacon saver, too many times. Once Val added the power that he could recharge allies to add their deck number +1 to any of his checks, his ability to move and successfully temp close almost anything anywhere reached a new level. Especially because at that point we really noticed that those little plus 1s to all his skills really mattered. You could feel their weight.
I played Valeros. But as it turned out, our party of 5 had way more kill power than we did the ability to succeed at general checks, such as to close. Being that when Val was up for a combat check I tended always to discard weaps for extra damage (in his case, recharging them), early on I had found myself having sufficient damage output, especially among a team that handled combat well. Thus, as handling closes and barriers presented a bigger threat to our group's success, I felt free to elect to place his first skill feat somewhere other than strength. I get that this sounds like blasphemy for some, but for our particular group makeup, that choice proved many times over to be the right choice...for us.
One play that came up in our sessions recently made us wonder if we were making a mistake. It’d give us some closure to know if this was indeed legal. To begin, we’re operating under the assumption that handing off cohorts is okay (even if there is an owner trait), and that other players can activate that cohort’s powers if in hand. Researching this a bit, we didn’t discover anything barring this so far. Kosher? I should note that our Adowyn is a pretty selfless player. Early on he was pretty happy to recharge most of his hand to examine for other peoples’ explores. But then this evolved into a whole different animal once he started lending Leryn out. The poor wolf turned sheepdog—we being the sheep: So imagine that we have Imrijka, Adowyn, Enora, Seelah and Seoni at a single location, and the players are playing in that order. Adowyn displays Leryn, collects him and recharges a card to examine. Now Imrijka knows what she is getting into on her turn. She explores. Say Adowyn examines again, and so Imrijika explores again somehow. Imrijka is now done and draws up, and Adowyn could have up to three cards left in her hand. On Adowyn’s turn, she passes Leryn to Enora. Enora uses Leryn to examine for Adowyn’s explores, perhaps 1-3 times. Adowyn concludes her turn and draws up. Enora begins by passing Leryn to Seelah and Seelah wolf-examines for Enora’s single explore. E draws up and Seelah passes Leryn to Seoni. Seoni examines a little for Seelah. Seelah finishes, and Seoni passes Leryn to Imrijka… Of course, in play this chain would be frequently broken, right? Still doesn’t stop it from proving astonishingly useful. Having to move away or disperse due to the presence of something bad certainly opens the door for either having to blind explore a little or waste valuable time. But having to restart Leryn’s adventurer-shepherding over and over still reduces blind explores considerably. True, bunching up does present an opportunity for a villain to flee into the unknown, or for some other bad thing to happen, but it’s a different case when you know what is going to be there. Honestly, on paper perhaps this would seem an impractical ploy, granted. But, especially when favoring targets such as barrier heavy locations, we are surprised what effect the border collie maneuver actually yields in the field. –Thanks to our Adowyn being so generous and fine-tuning the technique for unexpected variables. Again, though, as here was the play whose legality caused in us the most doubt, we remain curious to know…If it’s a thing. Thanks
I'm glad you like the way the challenges were presented in SnS, isaic16. We had a blast with it. There certainly were sufficient moments for us where we looked over the scenario and suddenly felt the pang of being out of our element. Slightly off the topic of difficulty, but more on variety, we also really really enjoyed how frequently different abilities came into play in Shackles. This was a big improvement (for us) over RotRL. Instead of players always maxing their character's primary abilities, we felt compelled to put a lot of thought into selecting our skill feat checkboxes.
SkyeGuy's comment is my fave so far. Beyond the opinions, one of the chief virtues of the game is that you don't have to know any computer code to edit it for a better time.
fuji6100, Man, after reading that, I feel like I should apologize specifically to you. I'm sure I've got to be one of the people lecturing you about 'sucking it up' and all. I hate that that's how those posts came out. Really sorry, mate. Our group--by some random stroke of fate--found ourselves enjoying the B scenarios after being punished by them a bit. It's just what happened. And so someone urged that one of us ought to post our thoughts just to add a little perspective balance to the mixture (mostly for the designers to know, I suppose). Never really intended to debate anything or make anyone feel bad. Not just you, but apparently there are just too many strong feelings about this not to address 'em. And ending up having no fun at all on our precious weekends or w/e is too sad a prospect for me to behold. Well, the devs have balanced some trickier issues than this in the past, so we do have that working for us. If there's some magical remedy for keeping the majority of us happy, these are probably the guys to find it. Good hunting out there...
This is honestly all I wanted to hear. I'm glad that it was clear to you, e, but I couldn't detect that Joshua Birk 898 was allowing for exceptions at all, under any circumstance. Now I understand. Exactly because this is a game, and not electrical engineering, the language of extremes, 'always and nevers', can only hinder creative mechanics design. I'd just hate to see some reader get the wrong idea, like I did, that there are unbreakable rules that are always wrong. In my opinion, and many others', the idea that led to the creation of many great games came from someone being told that some design mechanic or practicality could never ever work.
Hooloovoo's mention of examples was an inspiration! Hooloolooja. Mr. Joshua Birk 898, perhaps an example can help me see a bit more clearly if nothing else will, eh? So if I am to understand that a later challenge must be—in terms of “absolute” difficulty—harder to win than an earlier challenge, otherwise a design error has been committed; and this is true in every case with no exceptions, then might I beseech your insight and explanation as to the following: In RotRL AD1 Scenario 1, Sandpoint is set afire by a goblin army. There’s a villain and henchoids and everything. In the following Scenario #2, the rejoicing people of Sandpoint hail the defending characters as heroes and the whole scenario plays out as a villainless, henchless ally-grab—essentially a whole scenario as a reward. Now to help me understand: First, I might be wrong here, but I would assume that you found scenario #2 to be relatively appropriate, fun and design flaw free. Yet 2 comes after 1 (I’ll cite Big Bird as my source). Okay, I’m being serious here. Is the reason that this does not qualify as a violation to your rule because: 1) This is but one scenario, and not a whole Adventure deck.
Now, I’m really curious. If 1) is true, then isn’t this purely an arbitrary opinion (one that in most cases I am likely to agree with you, but still just an opinion)? Moreover, if any part of your answer relates to 2), then isn’t it possible, even just Possible, that the devs could make a whole Adventure Deck that felt cool and rewarding, even though it is altogether weaker than its predecessor? No amount of imagination and/or fun could prevent them from earning a design demerit? Of course, I’m not talking about WotR AD1, as you surely must know. Not in the least. Regarding WotR specifically, I’ve really only offered thoughts on AD0. Your and my opinions on AD1’s difficulty could very well be the same. But it’s your base concepts of scaling and design flaws and hard rules without any possible exceptions to ‘em and such that’s been intriguing me most. Anyway, I still don't get it, do I?
@ Joshua Birk 898: I still do not understand why a later adventure or scenario MUST be more difficult in ABSOLUTE terms. This is always bad design? Listen. The way you are describing it is actually the way that I Prefer it! Honestly! BUT, this is a MUST, or else its a bad design? No exceptions? I fear that I'm not gonna be able to get it. But thanks for your patience, my man.
isaic16, I hate you. I'm just kidding, naturally! You put that together really well and a whole bunch of it makes sense to me. However, I think I miscommunicated the bit about scaling. I didn't mean to say that it begun when WoW did. I recognize that the creepies in video games often gradually got harder. I was hoping to point out that the point where the average gamer began outright rejecting anything BUT nearly perfectly scaled challenges happened sometime in WoW's heyday. In fact, that game had a lot to do with the phenomenon that sealed the lid on what stuff like Everquest started. How those games trained a generation is common knowledge among big game studios these days. I'm sure you know, and I'm really just parroting here. Too big and off topic an area to go into, this. So back to cards, eh. Now, isaic16, perhaps you failed to realize something after all. About all this WotR 'difficulty' and 'challenge' hullabaloo: did you ever stop to consider that the demons might be making me post all this nonsense in hopes to get players to spend their days endlessly repeating scenarios? Of course, officially, I must deny such absurdity. But, unofficially, be a dear and maybe spare us a blessing already?
You're right, Troymk1. It's way harder than the other APs. But IMHO, I don't believe WotR lives up to the difficulty described on the forums. From the best I can tell, much of the perceived challenge stems from a determination to play Wrath in the same way groups played AP1 & 2. Were our group to stick with our RotRL approach, I doubt we ever could bet past scenario B2. @ Jason S: Very cool. Armor, sure. So happy that it's so relevant. But also, like your group, many of the cards that we carry are meant for handing off to other characters ASAP. This can take a while...but it's been very effective.
Could be some wisdom in what you’re saying about scaring off new gamers, Mr. Birk 898. And I’m curious about isaic16’s comment about the possibility of the AP starting out very hard and not really escalating in difficulty. For if one day demons and devils no longer seem scary, there go some of our best metaphors. But allow me to play Khorramzadeh’s advocate for a moment. Just for a little fun and reminiscing. I enjoyed the breakdown of bane ratio stats. It’s helpful to see them laid out so well. These numbers definitely demonstrate something. But do they necessarily mean the B scenarios are poorly designed? …Why? You see, growing up on tabletop games, I remember well that the easiest time for a PC to die was generally in the early levels. This was sort of a given. Everyone just seemed to know it. There certainly was more chance to put up with early on, and just about everything was threatening to your character. In fact, it was a celebration-worthy feat getting through that first bottleneck, indeed. Endure the trials, and only then the world begins to reveal its boons. As with the fool’s journey, games often started out awful and merciless. Survive, and the game got easier. In fact, it only got hard again after our hero mistakenly believes that he’s mastered some aspect of the external world... So I guess we've been doin' it in reverse now, and for many long years. Since the beginning of WoW, at least, we like our challenges to always be gentlemanly and wait until we are ready. That's cool. It's kind of like the duel between Inigo and the Man in Black, and THAT certainly was cool. But it’s not the only ‘non-broken’ way to have fun. Near perfect scaling is something that us gamers have simply been indoctrinated with, and so now we demand it or we feel that some mechanic is flawed. I’m guilty of this reflex, too. It’s just, my doctor would like to see me cut back is all. But, could we ever consider this callous, nooblet-hating lethality of yore as a legitimate and potentially rewarding alternative these days? There was certainly a natural balance and benefit to our experiences with character loss tending to happen to us earlier rather than later. For one, catching up was much easier! Getting to experiment with a variety of novice builds before getting our footing gave us a larger picture of the game as a whole, and it didn’t put us too far behind our mates at that stage. As a bonus, a low-level character death or two helped instill a feeling of genuine threat at a relatively low time-cost (compared to the loss of a high level character)—yet we’d also somehow carry that memory with us, eventually far into the advanced levels; and thus was maintained the illusion of dire consequences even at the point where characters sometimes began to enjoy something akin to invulnerability. Someone here made a point that the threat shouldn’t be so high when we are first acclimating to our characters. Feels like a solid point. But, what about acclimating to loss and recovery? That is part of this game, too. Would you rather get your first taste of having to restart right away or much later? I’m for now when I can catch up faster. What’s that? You say you’d prefer Nevar? I guess that’s good too. On repeating scenarios, I could only repeat what I’ve said in another post, so I won’t. It’s also a much less fun discussion than death. At any rate, if the B scenarios are really going to be many peoples’ tutorial experience with all of PACG, I hear what you’re saying. But then wait a minute. What about the group out there that shelved RotRL because they were outraged over what little fight was put up by ol’ Pillbug “Pushover” Podiker? Like, those guys probably exist too, right? Maybe if they started with WotR, they wouldn’t have had to give up and move on to skydiving with Bengal tigers or something… To think of the lives, and tigers, that Wrath may have even saved. Well, I suppose all I really mean is that I’m not so sure I’d call these scenarios poorly designed. That kind of implies that the makers set out to achieve a mark and missed it. The scenario configs really seem to me to be a purposeful ‘choice’, rather. Perhaps it is the wrong choice. But I guess if it is a choice, it can only be wrong for some. That is, UNLESS the designers truly intended to start out mild and then gently and evenly build the challenge level. THEN, your table would present some damning evidence that the gods must be crazy, sure. But who among us knows a dev’s mind, eh? We don’t even have any in captivity to study—for they seem to know how to spot our tangle traps, you see (even despite the label stating “100% Unpredictable”). But until we’ve got one strapped to the examining table, I feel I must yield that even such a peculiar bane/boon ratio progression as that boils down to a matter of preference rather than Unintelligent Design or something. Peace, & thanks for a stimulating and informative analysis.
Some of the best gaming and writing is centered on coping with and recovering from loss. Perhaps it'd even encourage certain players to govern their games a bit more honestly and enjoy the ride. Imagine a sword only attainable from a recovery scenario. A kind of prestige in that, as well as a material and constant reminder of a past flub-up. Cool. If there was a practical way to balance/manage/print an idea like this, it could be electric. At a glance, it's a big undertaking, though. Then again, I remember when the adventure card game was first coming out. Many people doubted that the PACG people could deliver a fun, well balanced, table-toppish co-op card game. So I guess these would be the people to make something like that fly.
Some insightful observations and offerings have certainly been made about the challenge and the overall ‘random factor’ of the WotR introductory scenarios, sure. It would even appear that such has become a bit of a strain on some groups’ enjoyment of the game. However, to my experience, the design and balance thus far of WotR have brought out the best in our playgroup. For us, it has been a stellar experience, in fact; and I sure would like to share just a little of our appreciation with the resident Paizo peoples what dwell here—of both the player and dev variety. Thanks. Ours is a group of five: the same five players who journeyed through RotRL and S&S. And, admittedly, following a quick preview of the orange and yellow base and character add-on cards to set the mood, we were afraid. Very afraid, really. The potential for some pretty terrible series of chance events to threaten our characters’ success, as well as their lives, began to half sink in early on. We built and then rebuilt our starting decks with very mixed feelings initially, true. But then, somewhere during this somber exercise, something delightful happened. So we rebuilt our decks again, but this time inspired. See, we found ourselves accidentally entertaining strategies that we had never considered before. In defense of our characters’ very souls we were reflexively reassessing the value of cards that we’d grown accustomed to outright dismissing in previous sets. And best of all, though I wish I could brag on what a clever lot we were being, we really weren’t. Rather, we were just being scared. And, to their credit, that was Mike, Vic, Tannis, and that whole bunch’s doing: forcing us to get far outside of the way we wanted to and expected to see things. Adjust or die. Sounds awful. Is this even recreation? To us, it sure was. And we inadvertently realized that it came at just the right time, for I think that subconsciously our group was beginning to feel that we had extracted the gist of what PACG had to offer. Of course, I’ll also yield that at a different phase of our lives, it could be that we wouldn’t have appreciated paying money for that kind of pressure. I respect that sentiment. I do. But where we are now is here. So thanks, devs, for what you did with this set so far. I think that it’s just what we were after, maybe even without knowing it. So, too, will we be thrilled if Mummy’s Mask proves, as the beginning of WotR did, that it is folly ever to hope to master the PACG. The party that we chose has been made up of Imrijka, Adowyn, Enora, Seoni and Seelah (a decision finalized more for a very silly reason than any tactical one). From there, though, we got serious. Unfortunately, having no experience with tiny teams and being that our approach relies on having a large number of players, I wouldn’t know what to offer a group of say, two, other than my sympathies. But for five, we’ve stumbled onto what feels to us are some effective and fun methods for coping with many of the typical problems that have been reported, such as avoiding/handling unfortunate concentrations of demonic hoards and arboreal blights, how to keep Enora alive, etc… And if it is true that so-called ‘randomness’ can be influenced as such, then it might not be so entirely random. This is just our experience, and if anyone is curious about any details, I’d certainly be too glad to share them as well. Much of our play involves playing very very dedicated roles, even if only certain characters tend to get all the battles and the glory. Maybe this simply wouldn’t be fun for some, but we tend to derive a lot of satisfaction taking co-op to a very extreme place. And WotR has been one of the only recent games that has allowed us to indulge in this little vice, really. I’d wager other customers must feel this way too. Anyway, we like it.
elcoderdude,
We're lucky to catch nice folks like you guys on a Saturday.
Mr. Moon269, We've never corresponded, you and I, but I've read enough of these boards to know it'd be you, mate. My buddy who's monitoring the board just gave me a heads up that someone responded with an offer to help us in this time of darkness. He read your message aloud, then I asked him if the poster's name was Hawkmoon-something. ...And so it was. Paizo, and us players-in-the trenches alike, are indebted to all of your help around here, I think. We eagerly await your message. Thanks a bunch, man. Allow me to extend big thank yous to the makers of the game too--from a large group who loves the game.
Greetings.
Unfortunately, several members of our group travel a long distance to participate in these sessions, and this is the first time that we did not have the opportunity to pre-examine the deck before game day. Is it possible that someone from Paizo--or perhaps just a kind fan--promptly provide us with a front and back pic of the card, or perhaps just the stats? We are anxious to make good use of our play date today, for they are dreadfully infrequent. Thank you kindly. -Desperate on Saturday |